Robinson v. United States

Opinion

AL Jfn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~Iaittt5 No. 15-1556C (Filed May 5, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

** * ** ** ** *** ** * **** ** **** * FILED BEATRICE ROBINSON, * MAY - 5 2017 * * U.S. COURT OF Plaintiff, FEDERAL CLAIMS * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ** *** ** ***** ** ***** * * *** *

ORDER

Plaintiff, Beatrice Robinson, filed a complaint in our court contending that the Department of Education (Department) was improperly garnishing h er social security disability benefits to satisfy a student loan which had been discharged due to disability. Compl. ir 2. In response to the complaint, and after some forms were received and processed, the Department refunded to Ms. Robinson the money it had offset from her benefits and ceased the garnishment. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.'s Mot.) Exs. A-B. As this remedial action mooted plaintiff's claim, defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint. Def.'s Mot. at 1.

Plaintiff acknowl~dges that she h as received the relief she sought, but opposes the government's motion to dismiss because she claims she is a "prevailing party" entitled to the reimbursement of her $400 filing fee. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. at 1. Unfortunately for plaintiff, as both the Federal Circuit and t he Supreme Court have made clear, a party who obtains all the relief it seeks because the government voluntarily agrees to provide the relief requested, without the involvement of the court, is not a prevailing party within the meaning of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Bucl?-hannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 610 (2001); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Rice Servs., Ltd. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1017, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 2016-2304, 2017 WL 1541520, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2017). As this Court may only tax costs when a plaintiff is a prevailing party, U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMidea City, L.L.C., 807 F.3d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(l) & 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1), plaintiff cannot be awarded the fee she seeks.t As plaintiff has obtained all other relief she sought, her complaint is moot. See Technical Innovation, Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 276 (2010). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close t he case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~4i ~ Judge

t As plaintiff cannot be awarded the only relief she seeks, there is no reason to stay this case while she seeks an attorney. Accordingly, her motion for a continuance is DENIED. - 2 -